Traffic Cameras?

I like to get home in one piece, thank you.
First full day of winter ride, 2019.

 There is a discussion underway in Santa Fe to deploy traffic cameras to catch speeders. This has been met with the usual resistance such as offered in the Letters section of today's New Mexican. Speed cameras are an imperfect solution to a real problem: speeding.

Although motorists may feel safe while speeding in a 5000 lb vehicle equipped with air bags, crumple zones, seat belts, and a lot of mass, its tough to be a pedestrian or bicyclist hit by a car. Several studies are readily available (Science Direct here and the AAA Foundation version here) indicating the rapid rise in mortality suffered by those hit by cars as vehicle speeds increase. Quoting from one paper, "...The average risk of death reaches 10% at an impact speed of 24.1 mph, 25% at 32.5 mph, 50% at 40.6 mph, 75% at 48.0 mph, and 90% at 54.6 mph. Risks varied by age. For example, the average risk of death for a 70-year-old pedestrian struck at any given speed was similar to the average risk of death for a 30-year-old pedestrian struck at a speed 11.8 mph faster...."

Yet major arterials in Santa Fe (Cerrillos, St. Francis, St. Michaels) are typically posted at 35 mph or higher. Actual travel speeds are likely in excess of posted speeds, giving pedestrians hit by cars a fifty fifty chance of ending up in the morgue.  This is a social justice and traffic justice issue, if we wish to promote alternative transportation (biking, walking, mass transit). Of course these are state roads and not subject to traffic cameras.

Cameras, however, are a tricky solution for several reasons. One, they perpetually lead to assertions that they are forms of "policing for profit", since cities often contract with for-profit companies to run the cameras rather than manage the systems themselves. Policing for profit is big business in some jurisdictions that are under-capitalized and which rely on fines to balance their budget. Balancing the budget with fines often puts the costs on the backs of the poor and minorities. The death of Philando Castile during a botched traffic stop is one of the worst examples of worst case outcomes.

Cameras are also problematic because motorists are getting mixed signals. We design roads to be wide, fast, and efficient for motorist travel.  You cannot then post a speed limit inconsistent with design and ticket drivers for what comes naturally to them.  There is ample literature saying that wide roads that look like highways will be driven like highways and this encourages speeding. You can post a road at a low speed limit but this conflicts with that old "85th percentile rule" that says if 85 percent of motorists think a road should be driven fast, it should be posted fast. For example, St. Francis Drive or the SW section of Cerrillos.

The best way to lower traffic speeds is to engineer roads so they look like they should be driven slowly. Unfortunately, this is a costly transition and subject to a budgetary process. Maybe in the future we can, in addition, mandate that all motor vehicles be equipped with GPS-linked speed limiters. But like making "smart guns", making "smart cars" that don't speed is a tough sell and made even tougher since the average life of a car is now about a decade.

For now, we use a patchwork of enforcement mechanisms. If we are to use traffic cameras, the first thing to do is make sure the city owns and operates them. That takes away the biggest accusation against the city, to wit, that we are not interested in safety so much as in lining the pockets of a for profit traffic camera company.

Stay tuned.

Is the River Trail Safe to Share, Vol II? Or, Where Is The Eastern End?

In the last post, I discussed the Santa Fe River Trail, covering the segment from St. Francis SW to Siler Road. Today, after putting a pair of Schalbe Marathon Plus tires on the Long Haul Trucker and having a former BTAC member gently remind me to look at the eastern end of the River Trail, I  took a look at the trail from St. Francis Drive towards Downtown.

Mounting those tires was indeed a bit of a marathon. They were so tight on the rims that I ended up using motorcycle tire levers to mount them. My buddy Pat O'Brien concurs.  If I ever flat on the road, I think I might just call a cab.

Back to the trail. I hopped on it at St. Francis. For the most part the trail is plenty wide and the sight lines are excellent.

Between St. Francis and Campo, looking W.

Between St. Francis and Campo, looking E.

 However, when you are passing Campo you start seeing suggestions that the trail will soon end. But where?

Sensing impending end of trail, I kept riding eastward. Finally, when I was approaching Galisteo, the trail precipitously narrows to about five and a half feet and there is a sign indicating cyclists can take the full lane. Presumably, since at this point the trail is not of minimal AASHTO width to share and the sign indicates we can take the lane, this is the end of the multiuse portion of the River Trail. At that narrow width, I would not attempt to share it in a busy downtown area.

I think the City should put up a sign or signs indicating that the multiuse portion of the River Trail ends where the sidepath narrows below AASHTO minimum.  I wonder if this is the area where the older gentleman who spoke at a recent BTAC meeting felt genuinely rattled sharing what at this point is a sidewalk with cyclists.Not sure, but at any rate, we ought to recognize that at this point the sidepath is actually a sidewalk.

Of course it is legal to ride on a sidewalk unless there is signage posted to the contrary as per 12-8-15 ("Riding on Sidewalks") of the Santa Fe Uniform Traffic Ordinances, (downloadable pdf here) and I didn't see any signage as required telling cyclists not to ride on the sidewalk. That said, I would think, as an LCI, that one's underlying assumptions would change just a little bit. Its now a sidewalk rather than a multiuse trail facility. Be more careful as there is less space to share and you therefore will not be able to give other users as much distance from yourself when sharing that space. 

Personally, I see no reason why a competent adult cyclist should be riding on the "sidewalk" rather than on E. Alameda. Traffic is manageable. I ride it all the time as it is part of one of my frequent short loops. My personal view is that once the sidepath narrows to below AASHTO minimum, it should be reserved for pedestrians in all but a few cases (riding with children, an elderly person who can't risk any possible contact with a motor vehicle, etc.). In those cases, RIDE WITH CAUTION AND WITH DUE RESPECT TO PEDESTRIANS.

Vandalized sign at W. Alameda and Campo
 indicating trail ends soon,

Wayfaring at Campo

Approaching Galisteo from the West, 
you see the sidepath narrow and are invited to take the lane.
Maybe we should add "multiuse trail ends here"

Just W. of Galisteo, the sidepath narrows 
to sub-AASHTO width. End of the (multiuse) Trail?
Long Haul Trucker with difficult to mount Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires 
is ~65 inches long (five feet five inches) for scale,
so "walkway" is about five and a half feet.

Is the River Trail Safe to Share?

Yield to Peds. Good idea

Its a pretty place, and very popular.

At a recent Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee (BTAC) meeting in Santa Fe, an older gentleman (and I don't mean that disparagingly, given my advance into geezerhood) who walks the River Trail was adamant that sharing the trail with bicyclists is not safe. Today, I took a short ride from the bridge crossing at the Gonzales School to the current end at Siler to think about it. Yes, it is safe, but only if everyone does their part to make it safe.

There are several issues to consider. Human conduct, engineering, topography, and maintenance. All come into play.

As far as topography, the trail follows the river, which is why its called the River Trail. Rivers need a gradient and this one is no exception. Riding a pretty mundane bike at a pretty mellow level of effort, I was able to easily push 15-22 mph riding downhill to the Southwest. Riding back to the Northeast, I was trying to maintain a moderately easy level of effort and chugging along at about 10 mph. So my suspicion is that downslope cyclists probably worry people a little more than upslope ones.

The bicycle

As far as design. The trail follows the river in some sort of easement. The trail width is eight to nine feet, approximately (I forgot my tape measure so used paces). The section from  Camino Alire to Ricardo Road is about eight feet. That is AASHTO minimum and a little worrisome for a busy multiuse trail. NE and SW of that the trail is about nine feet wide. I'll go measure it again to be sure.

In addition, the section of trail from Gonzales School to Ricardo Road has several sharp curves with limited sight distance and at Camino Alire, a fast downhill beneath the roadway bridge. This requires everyone to be on their best behavior lest someone go around a curve or down a hill too fast and get a nasty surprise. I show some of these below. This section also happens to have multiple parks and recreational fields, a senior center, and three bridges crossing the river to Casa Solana, so it is often quite busy. The combination of sharp curves and fast downhill cyclists coupled with meandering pedestrians and dog walkers can make for a hazard unless there is cooperation.

Sharp, limited sight distance curve needing signage

 Finally, maintenance. In addition to the widespread presence of ice, the trail is festooned with chamisa, some growing to be quite substantial and in addition to narrowing the trail, can obscure other users. I'm not sure what the policy is for the city to clear ice and snow from multiuse trails but strongly urge the city to look into this before someone is badly hurt and sues the city, and in addition, trim back the foliage so it doesn't create a hazard by obstructing the trail and screening users from each other.

As far as what bicyclists should do? Keep speed under control, stay alert, yield to and ride carefully around other users, esp. pedestrians who can turn more quickly than a bicyclist, and put a bell on your bike to alert others. As far as additional things the city can do? In addition to the Yield to Peds sign, I would suggest some SLOW, SHARP CURVES and perhaps SLOW, STEEP INCLINE signage to remind people what should be obvious. And trim the chamisa back so it is not impinging on the trail.

Fast downhill under Alire

 There is no one silver bullet here, just a lot of lead (or perhaps copper, to be environmentally correct) ones. The city should provide signage and maintenance and the cyclist should provide due care and common sense. The fashionable words today are to protect "vulnerable users" on our roads. Well, on a trail, an elderly gentleman is a vulnerable user. Ask one of my former Univ of Hawaii colleagues who accidentally knocked down an elderly lady who was walking with traffic as my colleague rode his bike down a mountain road. She hit her head on the pavement and died a few days later of a brain injury. Think about that next time you don't worry about trail safety.

Curve, ice, and chamisa screening

Massive chamisa obscuring a walker

About a hundred yards of glare ice

Nice bell purchased at REI

SW portion of trail has great sight lines